REVISIT Does LE have enough evidence to Convict Casey on 1st Degree Murder?

[Chanler]

Scott Peterson was indicted via a preliminary hearing. He was not indicted by a Grand Jury.

HTH

As usual, Wudge, a point well taken. Thanks.

 

[Wudge]

Thanks for the response Wudge. But, I am confused. As I stated, corroborating evidence, unless I'm completely out of left field, is inculpatory evidence. Inculpatory evidence is merely that which shows or tends to show a person's guilt. This is as opposed to exculpatory evidence which tends to shows a person's innocence of the crime charged. Corroborating evidence is evidence that supports other evidence or a theory of guilt. It is a type of inculpatory evidence. Could you explain why you think it is not a type of inculpatory evidence? Please cite, if possible. I am a lawyer. I have practiced since 2002. I went to a pretty good law school and passed the bar on the first try. I do not practice criminal law but I am familiar with the rules of evidence and so I don't understand your characterization. Can you help me out here? Thank you!

You believe inculpatory evidence and corroborating evidence have the same legal strength. They do not. Unfortunately, the belief that they do, as you say, does put you out in left field.

For example, you've cited some of Casey's post disappearance behavior as being incriminating -- in your mind. Let's assume prosecutors see her behavior as you do, and that's all they have. Do you really think a Judge would let a jury convict a defendant of pre-mediated murder based on the fact that they did not like the way a defendant acted post-crime; e.g., consciousness of guilt. That would not happen.

During the passage of jury instructions, the Judge would instruct the jury that consciousness of guilt is not, by itself, sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder.

In other words, while the behavior that allegedly represents consciousness of guilt might well look like a nice, big, soft, warm, lovely looking bun, if there is no beef to go along with it, there will be no conviction.

HTH

 

[LeLe1953]

You believe inculpatory evidence and corroborating evidence have the same legal strength. They do not. Unfortunately, the belief that they do, as you say, does put you out in left field.

For example, you've cited some of Casey's post disappearance behavior as being incriminating -- in your mind. Let's assume prosecutors see her behavior as you do, and that's all they have. Do you really think a Judge would let a jury convict a defendant of pre-mediated murder based on the fact that they did not like the way a defendant acted post-crime; e.g., consciousness of guilt. That would not happen.

During the passage of jury instructions, the Judge would instruct the jury that consciousness of guilt is not, by itself, sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder.

In other words, while the behavior that allegedly represents consciousness of guilt might well look like a nice, big, soft, warm, lovely looking bun, if there is no beef to go along with it, there will be no conviction.

HTH

Simple question..........did you go to law school? If so, did you pass the bar?

 

[Wudge]

Simple question..........did you go to law school? If so, did you pass the bar?

Color me wise. I still have stalkers from bulletin boards that existed at the time of OJ's first trial. Other than to say that I'm an old buzzard who has periodically posted on-line since the days of Mosaic (over 15 years), I've never divulged my personals.

(tip of my hat)

 

[LeLe1953]

Color me wise. I still have stalkers from bulletin boards that existed at the time of OJ's first trial. Other than to say that I'm an old buzzard who has periodically posted on-line since the days of Mosaic (over 15 years), I've never divulged my personals.

(tip of my hat)

I can respect your answer. I was not trying to get you to divulge personal info. I didn't ask where or when. I just asked IF, but I respect your answer all the same.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Color me wise. I still have stalkers from bulletin boards that existed at the time of OJ's first trial. Other than to say that I'm an old buzzard who has periodically posted on-line since the days of Mosaic (over 15 years), I've never divulged my personals.

(tip of my hat)

Well, silly me, and here I thought you must be a judge.

 

[JBean]

JBean, it was not cadaver dog evidence that Judge Delucchi ruled admissable, it was tracking dog evidence; i.e, a dog named Trimble that allegedly picked up Laci's scent at the marina.

As a point of interest, cadaver dogs locate the scent of death. However, death scents are generic. They are not specific to a certain individual.

OH right you are. I have serious dog confusion. I do not want to get off topic but would like you to help me recall something.
Was it Trimble or a tracking dog(s) or a cadaver dog(s) that was/were also videotaped in a training film making mistakes?.
Will we see something similar here? i don't mean a training video lol, but something to prove the dogs are fallible? How well does that usually do?

 

[GenealogyKR]

Yes I do think LE has enough evidence for a 1st degree murder charge. Every time I heard Yuri Melich say to the public to please say prayers for the family, I realized he really felt for Cindy, George and Lee. That just reassured me that he had substantial evidence and knew it wasn't going to be good news for them...no matter how long it took.

 

[LeLe1953]

Yes I do think LE has enough evidence for a 1st degree murder charge. Every time I heard Yuri Melich say to the public to please say prayers for the family, I realized he really felt for Cindy, George and Lee. That just reassured me that he had substantial evidence and knew it wasn't going to be good news for them...no matter how long it took.

:clap: I agree. I think at first he felt it in his gut, later he knew it for sure.

 

[Wudge]

OH right you are. I have serious dog confusion. I do not want to get off topic but would like you to help me recall something.
Was it Trimble or a tracking dog(s) or a cadaver dog(s) that was/were also videotaped in a training film making mistakes?.
Will we see something similar here? i don't mean a training video lol, but something to prove the dogs are fallible? How well does that usually do?

Hi JBean. You're thinking of Trimble. His handler was Eloise Anderson. She had a training tape (which she preferred to keep hidden) that was eventually brought to light and was used to savagely impeach her during the trial.

The real difficulty with dog evidence is that dog certification programs truly do not generate valid reliability gauges and bowsers cannot be put under oath. So we put their trainers under oath.

You might also recall there was another tracking dog by the name of Merlin. His handler was Cindy Valentine. During the preliminary hearing she testified and was also impeached. The prosecutors thought so much of her performance, they did not invite her to testify at trial. They relied on Eloise. (chuckle)

Two dog handlers for the prosecution, two horrendous impeachments.

It's too bad that dogs can't testify. Unlike their handlers, I have no doubt they would tell the truth.

 

[Wudge]

Well, silly me, and here I thought you must be a judge.

I'm smart enough to be one, but not dumb enough to admit it.

(smile)

 

[JBean]

Hi JBean. You're thinking of Trimble. His handler was Eloise Anderson. She had a training tape (which she preferred to keep hidden) that was eventually brought to light and was used to savagely impeach her during the trial.

The real difficulty with dog evidence is that dog certification programs truly do not generate valid reliability gauges and bowsers cannot be put under oath. So we put their trainers under oath.

You might also recall there was another tracking dog by the name of Merlin. His handler was Cindy Valentine. During the preliminary hearing she testified and was also impeached. The prosecutors thought so much of her performance, they did not invite her to testify at trial. They relied on Eloise. (chuckle)

Two dog handlers for the prosecution, two horrendous impeachments.

It's too bad that dogs can't testify. Unlike their handlers, I have no doubt they would tell the truth.

I knew you would have the details. So do the dogs typically get impeached or was this an abberation?

 

[Wudge]

I knew you would have the details. So do the dogs typically get impeached or was this an abberation?

Dogs do fine. They don't lie. Handlers should take a clue from their dogs. First, don't lie. Second, don't embellish. Let the jury have the facts, weigh the facts and decide.

If a handler for the prosecution embellishes, the defense will have an expert ready to make that clear to the jury.

Please understand that many if not most handlers are hired consultants (guns) for LE.

Would Eloise Anderson or Cindy Valentine have been rehired by Modesto PD if they did not attempt to spin for them and the prosecution? That's the dilemma, truth or a future paycheck.

 

[Jolynna]

Premeditation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That requires clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence. What is that evidence?

IMO, they have evidence of premeditation from the computer forensics. What we are hearing now are discrete hints about more to come.IMO.

I think what was searched and when will be damaging.

IMO

 

[Wudge]

IMO, they have evidence of premeditation from the computer forensics. What we are hearing now are discrete hints about more to come.IMO.

I think what was searched and when will be damaging.

IMO

If searches were pre-disappearance, they could be inculpatory evidence if they were ruled to be material and relevant and other evidence joins to prove a key element of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, if the defense offers a "reasonable" explanation for the searches, then jurors must set that evidence aside (yield to the defense). Jurors would not be able to use those searches as evidence to prove anything as long as the defense's explanation is "reasonable" to any degree.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Hi Wudge! Inculpatory evidence is that which shows or tends to show a person's involvment in an act, or, simply is evidence that establishes a person's guilt. Corroborating evidence is that which tends to support a theory already supported by other evidence. In some jurisdictions, any evidence must be backed up by at least one other piece of evidence. Corroborative evidence may be either circumstantial or direct. Both are considered inculpatory evidence:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corroborating+evidence

www.tjpc.state.tx.us/publications/reviews/07/07-3-15.htm

http://crime.about.com/od/g_criminal/g/corevdnc.htm

I have not found anything that states corroborative evidence in jury instructions cannot by itself prove guilt. In fact, I found the opposite:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\0311\opc022229-1118&invol=1

http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part4/4.5-9.htm
"The truth or falsity of the defendant's testimony cannot be proved solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even if you find that witness's testimony credible. Rather, it requires corroborated proof through independent and material facts and circumstances supplementing the testimony of the single witness. The corroborative testimony must be of such a character that, when taken in connection with all the other testimony, the falsity of the testimony is established beyond a reasonable doubt."

With utmost respect, it appears to me that you may be confusing circumstantial with corroborating/corroborative. I do agree with you, however, that jury intsructions often call for the jury to apportion weight to different types of evidence, or which give the jury leeway to apportion such weight. But, I'm to lazy to look that up. Nevertheless, respectfully, I must disagree with MiraclesHappen that all we give here are our opinions and that nothing we state here can be fact. Rules of law regarding evidence are not opinions. They are facts. If you could give support via actual Florida law or past jury instructions regarding how jurors are to consider different types of evidence when deliberating, that may help to show that you are not espousing a mere "opinion" but rather a act. Facts stated on this site include things such as casey was indicted on murder one. That is not an opinion. It's a fact. Thus, if Wudge is making accurate statements about the consideration of evidence, those statements would constitute fact and not opinion.
As far as what inculpatory evidence exists to support pre-meditation? I believe the following would/does, if such evidence actually exists, and I have no reason to doubt LE's contention that it does exist:
1. Computer searches on casey's computer of chloroform, in the months leading up to Caylee's disappearance.
2. Significant traces of choloroform in the trunk of the car casey was driving.
3. Computer searches on casey's computer of "missing children" sites in the months leading up to Caylee's disappearance.
4. Statements by casey on the internet and/or in text messages that she was troubled by having a child.
5. casey's refusal to report Caylee missing, ever.
6. casey lying to LE and taking them on a wild goose chase when LE began investigating the disappearance.
7. casey's statements to witnesses about the source of a smell coming from her car.
8. No 911 calls by casey regarding any accident and/or kidnapping involving her baby.
9. casey failing to bring any clothes and limited supplies for Caylee when she left on the last day anyone saw Caylee alive, as supported by witness statements, including CA, and the physical evidence found in the car she drove and brought back by the boyfriends and friends she hung out with when she left the house with Caylee on or about June 15/16, 2008.
10. casey's demeanor in the weeks after Caylee disappeared,during the investigation and after her inital arrest. She showed no panic, no fear, no sadness no guilt regarding the disappearance of her daughter, much as many would in the event of an accident or involuntary manslaughter type incident. Instead, casey showed apathy about her baby's welfare, relief after Caylee disappeared and some measure of happiness.
While I am aware that much of the above is circusmtantial, the computer searches, if proven to be likely done by casey, are not circumstantial, IMO. And all of the above consists of inculpatory evidence, or evidence that may point to casey's guilt in the pre-mediatated killing of her little girl.

ther_beatingA_Dead
And I am the one beating the dead horse, not you. That's a fact.

Gitana, of course, when I cite a rule of criminal procedure and underline it with italics and everything...it is a fact.


I said that nobody's (personal), including my own, opinion is fact! I stand by that statement.

 

[Wudge]

ther_beatingA_Dead
And I am the one beating the dead horse, not you. That's a fact.

Gitana, of course, when I cite a rule of criminal procedure and underline it with italics and everything...it is a fact.

I was trying to get a message through that I will not be sucked into a game of I am right you are wrong, with Wudge, as that is a meaningless exercise in futility.
We ALL make mistakes. But if Wudge is going to continuously tell me I am wrong without citing rules and precedent, while demanding those things from everyone else...I have a problem with that inequity.

I said that nobody's (personal) opinion is fact! I stand by that statement.

I previously noted that in criminal trials, jury instructions are precedent you seek. That's when Judges instruct the jury as to evidence that legally cannot stand alone (insufficient in and of itself) to serve as the basis for an inference that concludes the defendant is guilty.

HTH

 

[MiraclesHappen]

I previously noted that in criminal trials, jury instructions are precedent you seek. That's when Judges instruct the jury as to evidence that legally cannot stand alone (insufficient in and of itself) to serve as the basis for an inference that concludes the defendant is guilty.

HTH

You might want to check the difference between a required finding of guilty and a JNOV as it is my opinion you are obscuring the lines between the 2.

When I need assistance in seeking precedent, I will be the first to ask.
Jury instructions are NOT the precedent I seek.
I am not seeking precedent.
As for Jury Instructions per se, I have quoted Florida Jury instructions in this thread relative to Casey Anthony. You have not.
I have quoted the Florida Supreme Court. You have not.

Appreciate your precedent though.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

When I need assistance in seeking precedent, I will be the first to ask.

SNIP


Appreciate your precedent though.

HTH

You said I had not cited precedent; so I repeated: "jury instructions".

 

[curiositycat]

Hi, CuriosityCat, you might be right, but grand juries frequently don't need much to ask for charges. (And, of course, prosecutors don't want to tip their hands any more than they have to.) Your example of the Scott Peterson grand jury is pertinent, but of course, there are no exact parallels.

Personally, I'm hypothesizing that LE doesn't have a bundle more than we already know or they would have made major charges earlier, rather than waiting until now. But you can change my "hypopthesizing" to "guessing" and I won't disagree. In any case, we will see!

I should have been clearer. I meant Stacy Peterson..not Scott Peterson. I was talking about the fact that in about 10 days it will be one year since SP went missing and Drew P. has still not been charged with the murder. This is light of the fact that his third wife's murder was ruled a homicide.

Sorry I didn't make myself clearer